OK, I see that, but the storm STILL was not "more powerful" when it was inland. It sat in one spot and dumped a lot of rain, but it didn't become "more powerful." It did not jump from a Cat 4 to a Cat 5. It wasn't even a hurricane when it reached Appalachia. This kind of rhetoric is not helpful to those in need. We need to dial back the sensationalism, recognize where the issues are, and focus.
I am not new to weather research. You also have my condolences if you were adversely affected by the storm.
I have followed hurricanes especially for about 30 years. One thing I have noticed within the past 3-4 years is that news reporters, and even weathermen, are inaccurately confusing "sustained" with "gusts." This was especially notable with Helene and Milton. I question some of their claims with the category of hurricane assigned, when they confuse wind characteristics such as I described.
Helene was a Cat 4 when it made landfall, allegedly. I could not duplicate Cat 4 sustained wind speeds when watching real-time wind speed maps. The map I mostly use allows for the user to switch between sustained and gusts. When I switched to gusts, I could get 130-135 mph gusts in a very tiny area, but that is not within the categorization of a Cat 4 storm. I have noticed this phenomenon going back to Hurricane Katrina. I suspect that news services do this to whip up fear, getting more viewers.
When you have ground saturation from rainfall, shallow-rooted trees, as well as old, top-heavy trees, will topple easily. It doesn't take much wind to do this. If they are in a vulnerable location, especially a hillside, they will go. A tree with a wide trunk is not immune to toppling, especially if it has a large canopy. It's a combination of the weight in the air, how much wind the leaves catch, and the weakness of the soil and depth of the root ball. If an area has escaped heavy storms for a few years, you will have many, many trees "primed," and ready to go.
If trees actually snapped, that's usually evidence of a tornado. It takes much higher windspeeds to snap trees than from the kind of tropical storm you describe. Snapping a tree requires a "yank" or "twist," or a straightline wind higher than, say 130mph. Trees will also snap if they are diseased and have a weak spot, or a cavity carved out by woodpeckers, for example.
I'm not doubting that you did research. But if your sources are using flawed or fraudulent information to start with (i.e. "sustained" vs. "gusts"), then your conclusions will be inaccurate.
I took a look at the rainfall amounts from the different areas affected. There were some higher amounts, above 20" over a 72-hour period, and I agree, this is especially problematic in hilly terrain. But other areas had 10-12 inches over this time period, which we can get somewhat uncommonly here in Florida, maybe once a season. The soil here doesn't percolate well, and areas here can flood easily. I understand this phenomenon. As I understand it, most of the destruction was from water releases from reservoirs that overwhelmed the areas downstream in North Carolina.
In 2018, we took a direct hit from Hurricane Michael, which is largely ignored by the media. Hurricanes typically weaken as they approach landfall, but Michael, two hours from shore, was a Cat 2-3. When it made landfall, it was most definitely a Cat 5, with some calling it Cat "6". I have been through two other hurricanes, two weeks apart, which were Cat 3 storms. I can tell you, no joke, that we had sustained 140-145 mph winds at our home for two hours, 25 miles inland, and I don't doubt that there was 165-170mph sustained along the coast. There is no verification of these wind speeds, because all the weather stations were destroyed before the worst of the storm had hit. The last reading on one wind speed gauge at Tyndall AFB was over 200mph.
We were also brushed by an F2 tornado this past January, and had some roof damage. I'm intimately familiar with destructive wind storms.
Again, I'm glad you escaped the worst of the storm. I didn't mean to sidetrack your thread, and I will refrain from adding anything further. I originally read your OP wrong, and I apologize.
OK, I see that, but the storm STILL was not "more powerful" when it was inland. It sat in one spot and dumped a lot of rain, but it didn't become "more powerful." It did not jump from a Cat 4 to a Cat 5. It wasn't even a hurricane when it reached Appalachia. This kind of rhetoric is not helpful to those in need. We need to dial back the sensationalism, recognize where the issues are, and focus.
Snark duly noted.
I am not new to weather research. You also have my condolences if you were adversely affected by the storm.
I have followed hurricanes especially for about 30 years. One thing I have noticed within the past 3-4 years is that news reporters, and even weathermen, are inaccurately confusing "sustained" with "gusts." This was especially notable with Helene and Milton. I question some of their claims with the category of hurricane assigned, when they confuse wind characteristics such as I described.
Helene was a Cat 4 when it made landfall, allegedly. I could not duplicate Cat 4 sustained wind speeds when watching real-time wind speed maps. The map I mostly use allows for the user to switch between sustained and gusts. When I switched to gusts, I could get 130-135 mph gusts in a very tiny area, but that is not within the categorization of a Cat 4 storm. I have noticed this phenomenon going back to Hurricane Katrina. I suspect that news services do this to whip up fear, getting more viewers.
When you have ground saturation from rainfall, shallow-rooted trees, as well as old, top-heavy trees, will topple easily. It doesn't take much wind to do this. If they are in a vulnerable location, especially a hillside, they will go. A tree with a wide trunk is not immune to toppling, especially if it has a large canopy. It's a combination of the weight in the air, how much wind the leaves catch, and the weakness of the soil and depth of the root ball. If an area has escaped heavy storms for a few years, you will have many, many trees "primed," and ready to go.
If trees actually snapped, that's usually evidence of a tornado. It takes much higher windspeeds to snap trees than from the kind of tropical storm you describe. Snapping a tree requires a "yank" or "twist," or a straightline wind higher than, say 130mph. Trees will also snap if they are diseased and have a weak spot, or a cavity carved out by woodpeckers, for example.
I'm not doubting that you did research. But if your sources are using flawed or fraudulent information to start with (i.e. "sustained" vs. "gusts"), then your conclusions will be inaccurate.
I took a look at the rainfall amounts from the different areas affected. There were some higher amounts, above 20" over a 72-hour period, and I agree, this is especially problematic in hilly terrain. But other areas had 10-12 inches over this time period, which we can get somewhat uncommonly here in Florida, maybe once a season. The soil here doesn't percolate well, and areas here can flood easily. I understand this phenomenon. As I understand it, most of the destruction was from water releases from reservoirs that overwhelmed the areas downstream in North Carolina.
In 2018, we took a direct hit from Hurricane Michael, which is largely ignored by the media. Hurricanes typically weaken as they approach landfall, but Michael, two hours from shore, was a Cat 2-3. When it made landfall, it was most definitely a Cat 5, with some calling it Cat "6". I have been through two other hurricanes, two weeks apart, which were Cat 3 storms. I can tell you, no joke, that we had sustained 140-145 mph winds at our home for two hours, 25 miles inland, and I don't doubt that there was 165-170mph sustained along the coast. There is no verification of these wind speeds, because all the weather stations were destroyed before the worst of the storm had hit. The last reading on one wind speed gauge at Tyndall AFB was over 200mph.
We were also brushed by an F2 tornado this past January, and had some roof damage. I'm intimately familiar with destructive wind storms.
Again, I'm glad you escaped the worst of the storm. I didn't mean to sidetrack your thread, and I will refrain from adding anything further. I originally read your OP wrong, and I apologize.